CHAPTER - I

MARXIAN PERSPECTIVE OF EQUALITY :

AN IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Equality has become one of the most precious ideals of

present day world. Though most of the societies are

characterized by structures of inequalities, 10 the ideal of

equality has come to stay in modern world", The idealization

of equali ty has infact never passed unchallenged l and

serious doubts about the very concept of equality have been

expressed by several scholars. 2 Despite these objections, an

upsurge in the desirability of the ideal has been unfolding

gradually.

Ever since the mankind began to meditate over the

social conditions, the question of equality has occupied a

prominent place in their thoughts. 3 Equality meant

different things to different people and various meanings

assigned to i t were not always mutually consistent.

It is very difficult to conceptualize equality

1. Andre Beteille, "Equality of Opportunit.y and the ~ual

Distribution. of Benefits", R.R.Kale Memorial Lecture,
1985, ( Pune, Gokhle Insti t.ute of Politics & Economics),
p. 1.

2. W. Letwin, Against Equality (Macmillan, 1983),

3. Gunnar Landtman, The Orig~~ of the Inequality of the

Social Classes (New York, Greenwood Press Publications,
1968),p.l.

1
in an abstract way because we think of equality in the

social sphere in relation to the map of society we carry in

our heads, and people do not carry in their heads the same

kind of social map everywhere. 4 By equali ty some mean

equality of opportunities but others conceive it in terms of

equal distribution of benefits or equality of results.

Various conflicting ideologies view the problem of social

equality from different angles and the different methods

adopted for its realization were the creation of the special

circumstances of a particular age and environment. 5 It is

proposed to discuss the pre-Marxian theories of equality in

details, in this chapter, so as to know the actual course of

its cvoluti on. In the second part, the concept will be

examined in the theoretical framework of Marxism, and an

attempt will be made to analyse the viability of Marxian

egalitarian premises.

The concept and the ideal of equality has been evolved

through severCll distinct phases starting from the earlier

4. n.l,p.13

5. R.H.Tawney, Equality (London: Unwin Books, 1964),p.34.

See for further elaboration of the concept John Baker,
~~9.~~~9. i~~ ~g~~!~!x. ('-:.erso London, 1987), Philip
Green, !~~ ~~~~ui! ~i ~~~gualitl (Martin Robertson,
1981), Wlillam Ryan, Equality rPantheon, 1981), Kail
Nielson, ~g~al~!y ~~~ ~~~ertx. (Rowman and Allenheld
1985), Richard Norman, Free and Equal (OUP, 1987),
Robert Nozick, Anarchy Statea-nd Utopia (Blackwell,
1 9 7 4 ), Wi 1 1 i a m-Letw-i n-T e d .)-,- E§:~ ~~! ~ g ~ ~l:~! y
(Macmillan, 1983).

2
period of Greek-thought and contents as well as the

dimensions of the notion experienced fundamental changes

during this evolutionary process.

All known societies have classified their members into

categories above and below one another on some scale of

superiority and inferiority and such universal

phenomena has also been observed in the case of animal

societies 6 though we are least concerned with such

similarities. As the universality of inequalities is a

social fact, likewise, it is needless to argue that the

widely shared ideal of human equality commands universal

sanction. Infact, it was the ideal of equality which

motivated many utopian experiments both at theoretical and

empirical levels in history. It is important to recall that

only in the case of America about 100 to 125 communitarian

experiments have been identified by a scholar in the period

of 1750 to 1850. 7

However, the question which requires our immediate

attention is- why people want to be equal or to put in other

words, why the ideal of equality has been so much popular

from the earlier days of huma~ history. Though the present

----------------------------_. __._----------_._---
6. Kanre, Svalastogn, Social Differentiation (New YorK,
David Mckay Company Inc., 1965), p.2

7. G.R. Negley, Equality' in Collier's Encyclopedia (USA,

'I'he Crowell Co-olier Pub:-Co. 1963), pp. 278-80.

3
study precludes the psychological drive of man for equality,

however, it is worthwhile to quote D.Tocqueville in order to

pinpoint the universal sanctity enjoyed by the ideal of

equality. He wrote:

"Do not ask what singular charm the men

of democratic-age find in being equals
or what special reason they may have for
clinging so tenanciously to equality
rather than to other advantages that
society holds out to them: equality is
the distinguishing characteristic of the
age they live, in that of itself is
enough to exp~ain that they prefer it
all the rest."

Few observations are in order before attempting a broad

survey of the evolution of the concept of equality. First of

all equality ought to be conceived in a relative sense as it

is not an abstract and absolute concept. No society has

claimed so far, nor can it claim at any moment, that

equality has been realized upto the maximum point. Related

to this is the assumption that the dichotomy of equality and

inequality can be best studied by following the approach

which examines one unit in relation to the other and thus

viewing the complexities in their totality. The last one

which rather needs more attention is of vital importance as

it r~duces the possibility of a particular misunderstanding

which appears to have been developed in common. The

------ . --- -.------------------

8. Ibid, pp. 278-80.

4
misunderstanding primarily rests upon the idea that the

egalitarian radicals envisage too much equality among the

unequals. 9 The advocates of this view contend that men by

nature, are unequ_al and equality as an ideal canlt be

realized. Such objections and arguments have been repeated

time and time again and some kind of inequality has been

considered necessary for the smooth functioning of a social-

system. The inner logic of all these arguments remained the

same and intact throughout the history of socio-poli tical

thinking.

A social scientist is least worried about natural

inequalities. The equality which is the principal object of

sociological interest is not equality of capabilities and

attainment but of conditions and circumstances. The

inequality in question here is not of personal gifts but of

established social gradation,lO which is easily visible in

the system of social stratification of a given society.

Hence, any study of social inequality will have some

signific~nce only if it takes into account the

stratification-patterns available in social system. The

distinction between natural and social inequalities (i. e.

9. The liberal conception of equality seems to adopt such

arguments with certain modifications which were
essentially invented by Conservative School.

10. n.3,p.3.

5
individual difference among men and social distinctions

between them) for the first time, was made by Rousseau in a

categorical manner and now it has acquired common consent. I I

He wrote:

1 conceived that there are two kinds pf

inequality among human species: one
which I call natural or physical because
it is established by nature and consists
in a difference of age, health, bodily
strength, and the qualities of mind or
of the soul: and another which may be
called moral or political inequality,
because i t depends upon a kind of
convention and is established or at
least authorized, by the consent of men.
This latter consists of the different
privileges which some men enjoy to the
prejudice of others; such as that of
being more rich, more honoured, more

obedience .... l 1
powerful or ev n in a position to exact

Thus, the man has always believed and continues to

believe that equality is in some sense the norm from which

•
inequality represents a deviation. 13 The eternal quest for

11. See for instance, the four fold classification of

i III-qun 1 J litH' by Dt11tr(jndor f Jo l\nl1r~ Dt.!t(jlli~ (ad.) I
~~cifal_ ..!.~eq~ali!z: Selectected Beadin.<l~ {Penguin,
1978 , p.19.

12 . J . J.R 0 u sse au, " ~~i~~~£!~!i~~~~_!~~--2£i.<li~_~~9.

Foundation of .the Inequality of Mankind" in the Every
Man's Edition of the Social Contract and Discourses
TLondon, Dent and Sons, 1913r;-p.180.

13. I<r i stol Erving, "Equality as an Ideal" in Interna tional

~~~~~~~E~9.i~_~!_!~~_~~£i~~~£~~~~~~' Vol.v, (The
Mncnallc.ll1 Press <:Ind the Free Press, 1968), pp.108-10.

6
an egalitarian society derives its support from the ideals

of social justice and democracy and the naturalness of the

idea of equality seems to be derived from the dual

assumption that 1. Men are all members of one species.

2. All of them, therefore, should be treated universally

unless there is good and sufficient reason for not to do

so.14

The society which is characterized by the realization

of the ideal of equality upto maximum is supposed to be a

happier and desirable one. In would be relevent to see how

a scholar comes out with an interesting illustration while

arguing for equality.

He writes

If I have a cake and there are ten

persons among whom I wish to divide it
then if I give exactly one tenth to each
this will not at any rate automatically
call for justification; whereas if I
depart from this principle I am expected
to invent special reasons. It is some
senee of this however that makes
u4U~lity bS an ideul which has 1~ver
seemed intrinsically eccentric . . . . .

Hence, it is obvious enough to note that the advocates

14. Richard Wollheim and Issiah Berlin, Equality, part 1-2

(London, Aristotelian Society for the Systematic Study
of Philo~ophy, 1955-56), p.281.

15. Ibid, p.30S.

7
of equality have never been concerned to claim anything so

foolish as that individuals are exa'ctlY alike or equal in

physique, intelligence and character .16 On the other hand,

they insist that inequality is not merely a matter of

individual aqilities and aptitudes and it is above all, a

social fact.

For million of years man lived in primitive societies

characterized by the absence of any social inequality. The

subsequent social evolution witnessed the emergence and

growth of social inequality which in turn added a new spirit

to the egalitarian ideology. The demand and struggle for

equality was intensified particularly when social

inequalities became a continuous source of social conflict

and thereby challenging the survival and existence of

r
society.

The initial period began when 'justified unequali ty I

was reconmlended on natural basi s. The enlightenment t,hinkers

later on put the argument based upon nature against

inequality and the mode of thinking which attributed social

I

problems to super~natural and natural forces consistent with

the then existing theological and metaphysical word view

16. T.B.Bottomore, Elite and Society (Penguin, 1982), p.

129.

8
before lSth century17 became obsolete. The social inequality

afterwards was viewed and rightly so, as a social problem to

be tackled with Rational Social Engineering lS and human

advancements in the field of science and technology

confirmed the above outlook.

1.1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT-A BRIEF SURVEY

'i-
l.l(i) THE PRE-MARXIAN THEORIES

Three ideological orientations can be identified at

broad levels of generalization while having a glance over

the historical process of the evolution of the concept.

These orientations or schools have different ideas about the

extent of idequality, the meaning of equality, the

explanations regarding the origin of inequality and how it

can be minimized or done away with. These three

orientations: conservative, liberal and radical, approach

the problems concerning social equality ~nd inequality

17. n.ll, p.21.

IS. . By social engineering one should not mean that man is

able to transform the society in the way he likes but
in doing so he has to act under specific limitations.
Men make their own history but they do not make it just
as they please; they do not make under circumstances
chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly
encountered given and transmitted form the past. K.
Marx & F. Engels, Selected Works, (vol.l) (Moscow,
1977), p.39S.

9
diffenintly.19 The conservatives, for instance, justify

social inequality on natural grounds, the liberals find it

necessary for the functioning of a society. The radicals

believe that social inequality 1S primarily the outcome of

man-made circumstances therefore to them, it is not only

desirable but ulso possible to eliminate all forms of social

inequalities. Marxian formulations about equality can be put

under the last category i.e. radical school.

Each school of thought has a kind of common

understanding over some fundamental issues however it does

not mean that the boundaries existing among them is quite

rigid. Though all the above-mentioned schools do maintain an

identifiable area of agreements yet sometimes the boundaries

appear to be less d i s t i n c t due to the lack of

systematization of minor details. The striking similarities

between the conservative and liberal school are clearly

noticable.

(A) THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH

The conservative approach was primarily evolved through

the major works of Greek theoriticians. It began with the

19. Louis Kriesberg,. Social Inequality (New Jersy, Prentice

Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs 1979l, p.ll, see also for
similar categorization Stanford A. Lakoff, Equali~in
Political Philosophy (Honolulu, East-west Centre Press,
1964), p.8.

10
maxim t 1l;lt i nequali ty is inevitable und natural phenomenon.

The maxim was in no way different from the arguments of

liberals and functionalists and it served well throughout

the history of socio-political ideas when an in ....

egalitarianism was propounded.

A CClse against equality was established by Plato and

Aristotle who are universully regarded as the main

representatives of Greek Thinking. Plato in his 'Republic'

classified men into three categories, Men of gold, Men of

silver and Men of iron. He believed that each person has

predominant character and inherent qualities. Therefore each

should occupy the place and do the work for which he is best

suited by nature and such division of labour which gives

an individual the right place in social hiera~hy determined

l

by natural qualities creates social justice in a society. To

put in other words, men according to Plato, by nature, are

divided into those who love reason and who are fit to rule,

those who love honour and who are fit to fight and those who

love pleasure and material goods and who are fit to work. 20

Ironically, it is paradoxical for Plato to plead for

equality between man and woman and at the same time to

assume that man by nature aye unequal, and hence the

equality is against the 'nature'.

20. C. L. Way per, ~s:!i:!i:£~!_ .!~~~.9.~! (D e 1 hi, B. I .

Publications, 1977), p.28.

11
 Aristotle, another advocate of the conservative

approach, who for the first time addressed systematically

to the problems of social inequality in his classifical

work, 'politics I also supported the then existing social

inequalities by presenting the explanation on similar

grounds of natural differences. He wrote:

that some should rule and others be

ruled is a thing not only necessary but
expedient; from the hour of birth some
are marked for subjection others for
rule .... the male is by nature superior
and female inferior and the one rules
and the otlfer is ruled; this principle
gi_ E;~~~~~~!l- ~~!~~~~- !~- ra !!
numan]. ty ... someone uy nature are ree
and others slaves and for these la~rer
slavery is both expedient and right.

Thus, the conservative view point of equality

primarily a Greek creation, presupposes that men by nature

are unequal and social inequalities are natural, necessary,

desirable and bound to continue for ever. To them, the

problem figured only in person to person relationship and

the manifestation in terms of classes, positions, roles etc.

was neglected. The two prominent spokesmen of the approach

namely Plato and Aristotle indeed advocated a kind of

justified social' inequality. _Though, Aristotle confronted

21. Aristotle, Politics, Book I, Chapter 5, in Richard

Mckeon (ed.), Introduction to Aristotle (New York, The
Modern Library, 1947), pp. 559-61.

12
the problem with much care while arguing for 'distributive

justice' but he was unable to go beyond his time and

environment. His defence of slavery as a social institution

can be cited as an example in this regard. Aristotle

attempted to combine elements of hierarchy and social

aristocracy with elements of equality which was predestined

to result in a major contrast at that time. 22 Similarly,

Plato attacked the 'democratic government; as it insists

upon the liberty and equality among unequals.

The basic drawback lies in their inability to

differentiate between social and natural inequalities. The

conservatives approach suffered a lot from the wrong

assumption that social inequalities are merely the

culmination of natural inequalities. In fact Greek socio-

political thought which provided the fertile ground for

conservatives approach was maintaining a bias in favour of

aristocracy and inegalitarianism. 23 The above sweeping

generalization has been derived from the most.vocal and

dominating trends of Greek political thought which found

expression in the works of Plato and Aristotle. However,

there were some groups like Sophists, Cynics and the Stoicks

in the medieval period in particular, who stood against all

22. n.l9, p.l8.

23. Ibid. p.l6.

13
the customary distinction of Greek social life between rich

and poor, Greek and barbarian, citizen and foreigner, free

man and slave, well born and base born etc. 24

The conservative approach to equality dominated the

realm of political philosophy upto eighteenth century.

During the medieval period the social inequalities were

consolidated by legal sanction. The ideal of equality was

cherished by religious support of christianity in

particular. It was indeed a historical contradiction of

wider significance during medieval period that the religion

declared all men equal in the eyes of god on one side while

the feudal order was characterized by three estates of

clergy, nobility and all other people thus depicting the

striking parameters of social inequalities. The theological

ideal of equality remained utopian for a long time as it was

to be realized in heaven and inequalities on earth continued

to exist.

(B) THE LIBERAL APPROACH

The liberal approach appears to be some kind of

improvement on conservative school as it adopted same

contents without significant ~odifications. It is not hard

to establish an organic link between these two approaches.

24. G.IJ.Sabine, ~--.!i~~!ory of Political The~1 (London,

George G.Harrap and Co. Ltd., 1963), p.136.

14
The legacy of conservative approach was inherited by

liberals though with some minor changes, wherever considered

necessary.

The liberal conception of equality developed through

three distinct phases. We, at this moment, are concerned

with two initial phases and and third stage is to be

di scussed later which started with 'the functional analysis

of social inequality.

The initial two stages were marked by cont/radictory

explanations of liberty and equality. In the first phase the

view which gained wider acceptance was that liberty and

equ~]ity ore incompatible with each other. Some renowned

scholars like D. Tocqueville, Lecky, Bagehot, Hogg, Hayek

and Mosca were holding the same views but these views were

abandoned in the second phase and a new kind of

interrelationship between liberty and equality commanded

general support of the then liberalS. It maintained that

liberty and equality are not opposed to each other. The

question which arises here : why there was no agreement on

the actual inter-relationship between liberty and equality

among liberals? The answer of such a question is to be

sought in the changing scenario of social forces during the

16th and 17th centuries in Europe which in turn shaped the

genesis and growth of liberal concept of equality.

15
 The First stage began with the disintegration of

feudalism and the emergence of capitalism. The newly-emerged

capi talist class considered liberty as the highest social

value because it advocated the abolition of all obsolete

restrictions on industry and trade in order to consolidate

its position as against the class of land owners. The land

owners 11Dd D vested intereut in retaining these restrictions

so that status-quo can be preserved and their monopoly of

social positions as well as of economic resources can remain

unchallenged. It was the time characterized by several

scientific discoveries and the social movements like

Renaissance and Reformation gave birth to rational humanism.

By this time, the natural explanation in favour of social

in~qualities was being questioned and Rousseau marked a

major breakthrough in the history of socio-political thought

about equality.

The well-established presupposition that men by nature

are unequal and that there is, therefore, a natural rank-

order among men collapsed in the face of the assumption of

natural law that the natural rank of a~l men is equal. Thus,

the old argument invented by Greek thinkers served different

cause, a cause for equality by employing it in just opposite

direction. 'Men are born free and equal in rights .... I so

began the Declaration of the rights of man and citizens of

1789, the year which witnessed the French Revolution. 'The

16
question about the origin of inequality now onwards was

posed in a new and different, i.e. sociological manner. If

men are by nature equal in rank, where do social

inequalities come from?25

In this first phase, equality was conceived only in

legal and political terms. The demand for equality was given

secondary treatment as against the demand for liberty in

eighteenth century simply because the new class needed

liberty more than equality. In order to gain a political as

well as social position the industrial class opposed the

idea of social legislation and 'a laissez- faire' state

became the ideal of liberalism. The abolition of legal

privileges of land owning class was the central theme around

which the concept of equality was perceived. It was no

surprise that liberty was considered incompatible with

equality as the liberals of the age viewed liberty in terms

of the absence of restraints. The empty slogans of liberty,

equali ty, democracy, were primarily mi sused by a particular

class nile] therefore, whatever kind of equfity wos

visualized had secondary place in relation to liberty.

Equality at that time was demanded by newly emerged

capitalist class to wipe out the then dominating social

class of land owners. The conception of equality was

25. n.ll, p.21.

17
inadequate as social and economic aspects were completely

missing and an over-emphasis was clearly observed in the

case of legal and political equality.

The negative liberalism by its inner logic produced new

contradictions in capitalist society. Social inequality

touched new heights in the form of exploitation of one class

by the other. The process of urbanization and

,
industrialization was the key ;factor behind the emergence

and growth of a new class which was forced to sell its

labour like a commodity in market. The negative liberalism

created a socio-economic order characterized by antagonistic

class -relations resulting in large scale exploitation and

oppression.

'l'he concept of 'Police state I was considered no more

tenable now because the new order was being challenged by

excessive social inequalities, which were primarily the

outcome of negative liberalism. The state no longer was

considered as a necessary evil. On the contrary, it was

equipped wi th more power to ensure social justice and

equality through welfare activities like progressive

taxation, social legislation, r~distribution of wealth, etc.

The social inequalities were widely questioned by liberals

during this second phase and the socio-economic aspects of

equality were given more attention by utopian socialists,

18
Marxists and positive liberals. Therefore, the scholars like

Rousseau, Hume, Godwin, Tawney, Barker and Laaki were unable

to see any inherent conflict between liberty and equality.

The contribution of liberal school was mainly three-

fOld. Firstly, it made clear-cut distinction between natural

and social inequalities secondly) it employed the arguments

of conser/vati ves other way round in favour of equality and

thirdly, it, rightly, demonstrated that legal and political

equal i ty is not real in the absence of socio-economic

e.quali ty. Rousseau for the first time tried to examine the

causes of social inequalities. He maintained that all men

were free and equal in rights, that social inequalities were

primarily socially determined and that inequalities were

primarily due to the division of labour and private

property.26 It is important to note that subsequently Marx

was to start from where Rousseau had left.

The proponents of liberal approach in general tend to

favour modifying and reforming social inequalities. They

establish the preponderance of liberty over equality while

believing that inequalities cannot be abolished totally.

They are more concerned with equa11ty of opportunity, of

mobility rather than with equality of outcome or minimizing

26. u,.
Victor S .D ' Souza, Ineqa~1ty an d '1ts perpetuat10n
. ( New
Delhi, Manoh~, 1981), p.30.

19
.
unequal distribution of pre stige , power or material

conditions.

C. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

The liberal school came out with a functional

explanation for sDcial inequalities in the beginning of

twentieth cent ury, which was hardly different from earlier

explanations. Whatever changes found in functional theory

were introduced due to the changing environment and

increasing ideological pressures. 27 Obviously it was not a

pre-Marxian approach, but evolved in reaction to Marxism.

The Grand Theory of Functionalism was the handiwork of some

American sociologists led by Talcott Parsons. 28 The

originating points of functionalism can be easily traced in

the works of Radcliffe Brown but the present form of

functionalism embodies the legacy of Durkheim and Max Weber.

Durkheim was of the view that the division of labour creates

a kind. of solidarity which holds society together. Weber

also provided theoretical insights wi th which Parsons

27. See for detailed discussion C.W. Mills, The

Sociologicul Imaginution (N6I.w York, OUP, 1959), pp.25-
49 '. u n d l\. Go u 1 d n e r
I 'r~~_ ~~!.!:i-.~s.- ~ r ~~~_ 0 f _ weB t ern
!3ocl.ol~ (New York, Loncon, BaS1C ,BOOKs Inc., 1970).

28. Talcott Parsons, Towards a General Theor,:( of Action

The structure of Social Action (New DeIhl, Amerind,'
1947), Politics and Social Structure (New
York, Free Press, 1969~

20
attempted to build a general theory of social action

encompas~ing illl social sciences. 29

The twentieth century-functionali sm ref lected two

different approaches which entail functional explanations

for social inequality. The unifying elements have always

been present in these two approaches, however, both

supplement each other by arguing somewhat differently and

yet, in the same direction. One approach, primarily evolved

by Talcott Parsons stressed status-inequality and the values

and norms of society. He asserted that social stratification

is a generalised aspect of the structure of all societies.

It is the ranking of units in a social system in accordance

with the common value system. To make it more simple, every

society possesses a particular value structure which acts as

,a basic factor in maintaining social solidarity. The system

of social inequalities is the outcome of the value system of

that society. The range of inequalities thus, differ

according to the varying value systems. Some socie~ies have

I
cultures whose values foster greater inequality and little

mobility while other societies are characterized by the

values which tend to narrow the range between top and bottom
\''i\
'I )~SIT rNi No
29. Talcott, Parsons, (A Revised Analytical Approach to the
Theory of Social Stratification~ appeared in R. Bendix
and S.M.Lipset (ed.), Class Status and Power (London,
Routheldge and Kegan Paul, 1954), pp. 92-128.
THESIS
303.3720947 21
Sh235 So
1111111111111111111111 III
TH3463
of the strntification scale and also promote equality of

opportuni ties. Parsons identified four common problems of

adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern

maintenance along with five pattern variables, 1.e. types of

choices in the form of dichotomies between universalism and

particularism, achievement and ascription, affectivity and

affective neutrality, specificity and diffuseness and

finally between self orientation and collective orientation.

Another approach propounded by Davis and Moore

justified the existence of social inequalities with a

different argument emphasizing that people need to be

rewarded with prestige and material benefits in order to be

motivated for preparing and working hard in important

posi tions. Rewards dif fer according to the functional

imporOtance of the positions and scarci ty of people who can

fill them. 30

The propositions of functionalists can be summarised as

follows: The system of social inequalities i.e. a system of

social stratification is inevitable and desirable in order

to ensure (a) that important social positions are occupied

30. Though several Articles have been contributed by the

two scholars on the theme of social stratification but
for a synoptic elaboration of functional approach refer
to: Davis Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some
Principles ofoStratification"~ American Journal of
Sociologl' (10, 2, April, 1945) pp. 242-49.

22
by some talented specialized persons, (b) that the society

can motivate the occupants of higher social positions to

perform their duties by introducing reward differentials,

(c) that the society remains functional due to division of

labour and also because of the integrational role of social

inequalities which are merely a reflection of the existence

of value-consensus among its members (d) that the eociol

equilibrium does not face any serious challenges. But in

reality it is not onl~ a threat to aociety but also a threat

to the very existence of man.

Thus, the functionalists arrive at the conclusion that

social inequalities, which emerge out of the needs of

society, i. e. need for specialization, need of reward

differentials for motivational purpose, are functionally

necessary and necessarily beneficial.

1.I(ii) CRITIQUE

The above discussed approaches have been attacked on

various yrounds. The bias for system maintenance and status

quo is very much obvious indeed in the functional

approach. 31 Apart from this Marxist criterion, several

other liberal sociologists do not share the conclusions of

Functional School and the methodology through which these

31. n. 27, p. 413 and n.27, p.42.

23
conclusions are drawn. Tumin, Wrong, Wesoloswki, Huaco,

Buckley and Dahrendorf are some of those who have attacked

the bdsic premises of functional approach. 32 Lamenting over

the conceptual ambiguities they held functionalists guilty

for overemphasizing the integrative aspect of a social

system and neglecting perhaps deliberately, the role of

social conflicts. The theory appear to them as some sort of

justification or rationalization of social inequalities. The

Functional Theory seems to be least concerned with the dys-

functional role of social inequalities and the individual in

relation to society is viewed just as a passive recipient of

social infl uences. The state (i. e. social system) for

fun~tionalism is 'individual writ large' as it was for

Plato. The theory completely neglects the role of well

defined social-groups like class, status groups, elites,

which signify the patterns of power distribution and

economic relations. Because of this, no autonomous

boundaries can be identi fied among liberals ~ conservatives

32. See in this regard W. Buckley, "Social Stratification

and the Functional Theory of Social Differentiation",
American Sociological Review, (23, 3/Aug. 1958) pp.369-
75 Parsons genE::r~l idcus L:()nv~y a protoundly
consevative outlook in which belief in stability,
integration, order and the determining influence of
values playa large part. T. B. Bottomore, Sociology as
social Criticism (London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
1975), p.42. see also M. Tumin,(some principles of
stratificationr A critical Analysis, American
Sociological Review. (18, 4 I Aug. 1964,) pp. 3S1=-94:-w7
Wesolowski. The notion of 8~t~ and class in socialist
~~£~~!l' pp.122-l46 in Andre Betellie, ~~£i~~
Inequality: Selected Reading {London, penguin, 1974}.

24
and eli te theorists. 33 'l'he functionalists seems to inherit

the legacy of conservative school and the elite theorist

open their analysis where functionalists ends and thus a

situation is bound to arise according to their analysis in

which 'a group of people' will monopolize political power,

social prestige and economic resources giving birth to

excessive social inequalities. It would not be wrong to

conclude that these three systems of ideas (conservative,

liberal, functional including elite theorists) goes side by

side with the maintenance of inherent ideological linkages

though arguing differently according to the changed contexts

against the ideal of equality. It is no more a surprise for

us thctt for 'Chern aemocracy means the circulation of elites

and competition among them and equality means nothing more

than equality of opportunities strictly in legal and

political sense. The common belief in the 'inability of

Mass' and in the 'ability of few' makes above-mentioned

obs~rvation right.

Thus, all the existing theories of equality prior to

~he advent of Marxian Theory, were inadequate and incapable

33. For detailed discussion refer to V. Pareto, Treatise on

General Sociology 2 vols1916 Trans (New York,
Dover Publications, 1963), G. Mosca, The Ruling Class
1896. Trans (New York, Mcgraw Hill, 1939), R.
Michels, Political parties 1911 Trans (New York,
Free press, 1966) C. W. Mills, The power Elite (New
York, aup, 1956).

25 •
 of answpring two fundamental question: First, how did social

inequalities emerge and grow? and second, what can be an

appropriate strategy to abolish them. Rousseau was able to

explain the origin of inequalities by referring to the

coming of private property as a root cause which produced a

contradictory situation - a situation in which 'Man was born

free but found everywhere in chains'. But this exceptional

treatment by Rousseau could not go beyond the liberal frame.

His initial enthusiasm for equality was over in later years.

"He did not suggest the abolition of private property in the

means of production, distribution and exchange nor a planned

economy or cooperative production. Equality, at this

juncture did not exclude hierarchy or -require that no man

shall be richer or poorer than the others. 34 He advocated

changes in inheritance laws and taxes on luxury goods bu·t

the strategy, as history showed, was insufficient. He hoped

that law and government must ensure that all citizens have

enough property so that even the poorest of them are

independent of rich. 35 Such ~ hope was destined never to be

fulfilled. While his diagnosis is correct the solution that

he has to offer is wrapped up in customary ambiguity.36

34. John Plamentaz, ~an ~Society, vol. I (Longmans,

1963), p.424.
:. 35. Ibid, p.426.

36. Frank Thakurdas, Essays in political Theory (New Delhi,

Gitanzali pub. House, 1982), p.147, see also Lucio
Colletti, From Rousseau to Lenin (OUP, 1978), pp.190-93

26
 The conserva ti ve conception of equal i ty posed the

problem in its most~abstract philosophical and religious

form as equality of an individual as a human being in

general. 37 It is an irony that a value like equality which

is supposed to have emerged with the growth of capitalist

epoch is still traced back to Aristotle, the philosopher of

the slave society.38 The liberal conception of equality

arose in Europe out of the ruins of feudalism and nineteenth

century liberalism emerged as the champion of equality but

the 'equality' now onwards, got its political and legal

dimensions i.e. the problem of equality of an individual as

a citizen. 39 Accepting equality as an ideal principle,

liberal thinkers have been pre-occupied with explaining and

often rationalising social inequalities. 40 1~e conservatives

like Plato and Aristotle had complex arguments against

equality and their legacy continues even today though with

more sophistication and modification. 4l Max Weber as the

37. M. Markovic, The contemoprary Marx: Essays on Human

communism (Spokes Man Books, 1974), p.128.

38. M. Mohanty, in Andre Betellie (ed.) ~g~~!~!l_~~~

Inequality (ed) (OUP, 1983), p.250.

39. n.37, p.128.

40. n.38, p.249.

41. Burke, Spencer, Tocquevi lIe Dahrendorf, ,J. R. Lucas,

I

Barber are some of the people who argued against

equality by reviving the conservative traditions.

27
father of functionalism and pluralism facilitated an
innovative retreat for liberalism into conservative
pedestal. 42

It is obvious from the preceding discussion that all

the existing theories with the only possible exception of

Rousseau were inadequate to explain the origin of social

inequalities. So far as the 'ideal of equality· as a

principle of social organisation is concerned, some

theoriticians rejected it at the first hand and others

pretended to accept it with heavy conditions. The theme

which ran universally among them, throughout the history I

was that inequality is natural, necessary and functional and

the division of wealth and power corresponds to some 'deeper

reality· of human life. Since inequality was considered

necessary and desirable, therefore, the question of devising

an egalitarian strategy did not arise at all. Some scholars

arbi trarily described egalitarianism as the· "ideology of

envious and resentful intellectuals" and it is no more a

surprise when we find Dahrendorf agreeing with Kant who

called inequality among men 'a rich source of much that is

evil but also of everything that is good· .43 (emphasis

added)

42. n.38, p.262.

43. n.ll, p.42.

28
1.2 THE MARXIAN OUTLOOK

The following discussion is not intended to deal with

Marxism in details. However, the idea behind the entire

exercise is to present a synoptic-view of Marx so that the

notion of equality can be examined in the light of his

general outlook.

Marxism in the world of today, combines both philosophy

and action-programme which emerged against the theory of

liberalism and its manifestation in Mass poverty and

exploitation. Marxism as a theory of the laws of development

of human society, consists of three elements:

1. The dialectical-philosophy and its application to human

history.

2. A system of political economy, and

3. A particular approach to state and revolution. 44

Marx consummated the three ideological currents of the

nineteenth century as represented by the three most advanced

countries of mankind: classical German philosophy, classical

English political economy and French socialism combined with

French revolutionary doctorines.in general. 45

44. R. N. Carrew Hunt, The~eory and practice of Communism

(Penguin, 1978), p.39.

4S. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works (vol. 21) (progress Public

shers, Moscow), pp:.if3:79.

29
 The real worth of Marx does not lie in the originality

of his ideas but in the way in which he systematized them in

order to change the world. Dialectics, classes, class-

struggle, materialism and value theory of labour were not

something new discovered by Marx suddenly. He rightly

maintained that no credit is due to him for discovering

either the existence of classes in modern society or the

struggle between them. What he did as he himself remarks was ,.

"to demollu tnl te : 1) th~t the existence of classes is mer9..l.y

linked to particular historical phases in the developrr~nt , of

\
production, 2) that class struggle necessarily leads ~o the

dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictator~hip

only constitutes the transition to the abolition

. - -.- of all -.."

classes and to a class-less society.46

Marx, for the first time, in a unique way combined

j

materialism and dialectics but Marxism was also something

more than a combination of philosophical materia_1sm and

idealistic dialectics of Feuerbach and Hegel. For Marx the

\
ideal was nothing else than the material world reflected by

the human mind and translated into forces of thought~47

46. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence

(Moscow, 1975), p.64.

47. Karl Marx, Capital (vol.l) (Moscow, 1977), p.29. see

also in particular the unique article on "Dialectical
Materialism" by stalin in Problems of Leninism (Peking,
Foreign Language press, 1976), pp. 835-73.

30
Apart from the dialectics of Hegel, the materialism of

Feuerbach was not acceptable to Marx as it was

predominantly-mechanical, non-historical, non-dialectical

and it merely interpreted the world without a concern for

changing it. 48

The application of dialectical materialism in the

analysis of human history found concrete expression when

Marx spoke in following words:

'In the social production of their life

men enter into definite relations that
are indispendsable and independent of
.... '--~ - • • ~" -~, .,.f-~ ,...,nco ,....of! nrr.r'I"r-t-; f""In which

te of
development ot the~r mater~a~ productive
forces. The sum total of these relations
of production constitute the economic
structure of society, the real
foundation, on which rises a legal and
poli tical super--structure and to which
correspond definite form of social
consciousness ... this consciousness must
be explained rather from the
contradictions of material life, from
the existing conflict between the
social forces and the relations of
production ... 49 11
•

Thus, definite individuals who are productively active

in a definite way enter into definite social and political

48. Karl M~rx ~nd F. En~els, S~le~~eQ Works (vol.l),

(Moscow, 1977), pp.27-30i seeaTso-rvol.lf"r,-pp.337-76.

49. Ibid, p.S03. see also chapter 2 in Ralph Miliband,

Marxism and politics (OUP, 1977).

31
relations 50 in a particular epoch. The history of society is

the history of class struggles. "Freeman and slave, .lord and

serf .. stood in constant opposition to one another carried

on uninterrupted now open, now hidden fight ... ,51 In the

modern period, society is characterized by two hostile

classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoise and

proletariat. The class--antagonism between the two cannot be

resolved due to the inner logic of their antagonistic class-

interests within the frame work of the capitalist society.

The new-society as Marx envisaged will be characterized by

the abolition of private property, abolition of classes,

withering away of the state and also the abolition of

di stinctions between town and country, between manual and

non-manual labour. The obvious point which requires

attention is that the new society will provide a conducive

environment for the all round development of human

capabilities and the empty slogans of justice, liberty,

equality and democracy are to be materialized in such a

society up to the maximum ext.ent through the maxim from

each according to his ability and to each according to his

needs. 52

50. Ibid. p.24,

51. Ibid, pp.108-9. see also Robin Black.burn (ed.),

"Mar xi sm: Theory of p rol eta r ian Revol ution" in
Revolution and Class Struggle - A Reader in Marxist
Politics (Fontana, 1977).

52. Karl Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (vol. III),

p.l9.

32
1 •2 (l) MARXIAN THEORY OF EQUALITY: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

At the very outset, it is important to note that the

concept of equality had been a neglected subject among

Marxist writers for decades. 53 The abvious reason for such

negligence are: the lack of adequate treatment given to the

notion by Marx himself and the general assumption

considering it a bourgeoise value. 54 Nevertheless, an

alternative understanding of the concept, though in crude

form, can be traced in the works of Marx which was given

sufficient attention by Lenin and Stalin later on while

devising various egalitarian policy inputs in the context of

soviet society.

The Marxian concept of equality is a composite whole

consisting of two distinct-aspects. The first of it is

directed against the liberal view-point, and thereby

asserting that the capitalist system cannot have equality of

opportunity in the real sense given the character of

existing social classes. Though the liberal theoreticians

and capitalist state do claim formal equality in some

respects but as a matter of fact it may be a situation of

actual inequality.55 The advocacy of such type of equality

53. n.38, p.272.

54. Ibid. p.273.

55. Ibid. p.273.

33
which often emphasizes over redistributive measures without

introducing any corresponding changes in the prevalent mode

of production is empty and deceptive. For Marx, any

distribution whatsoever, of the means of consumption is only

u conscCjul'l1CC of the distributi.on of the conditions of

production 56 and the liberals miss the picture totally when

they treat categories like distribution, life chances,

market situation, status, political-power, honour, prestige

etc. independent of the mode of production and therefore

assuming that equality can be achieved through policies of

redistributive-justice within the existing framework of

capitaliEllll. 57 ,

To expose liberal view point Marx, Engels and Lenin on

various occasions, observed that there can be nothing like

democracy, equality, justice and liberty under capitalism

though in appearance, they might seem to be existing. 58 The

state has not existed from all eternity but became a

necessity with the split of society into classes in order to

be employed as an instrument for the exploitation of the

56. n.52, p.20.

57. See for instance, C. B. Macpherson, The political

.:t!::~ ~ E Z _ ~!_ E ~~rs ~ ~ ~ i. ~ ~ l!::~ i.~ i.~~ ~ ~i. ~~, !:! ~ 1::~~_ !.~
Lo':k~,(OUP, 1962 and John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
(OUP, 1971). -

58. K. Marx, 'Result of the Immediate process of

production' Capital, vol.l, Chapter VI and the chapter
on Cap ital In Grunderisse " also, n.52, p.330.

34
oppressed class. 59 The democracy for insignificant majority,

democracy for the rich is the democracy of capitalist

society and by its own logic it cannot ensure equality and

freedom for masses. After exposing the emptiness of liberal

equality Marx begins his own analysis. In order to discover

the positive aspect of Marxian theory of equality, we have

to analyse the answers provided by Marx and Engels to the

two crucial questions which have been at the basis of all

historical debates concerning social equality and

inequality. 1~e questions are: why and how (i.e. in what

form) social inequality arises and what can be the strategy

for the elimination of social inequality.

Like Rousseau, inequality remains a 'social fact I for

Marx and Engels and no such explanations .which justify or

mystify the phenomenon through 'the rule of nature' are

acceptable to them. Though Marx nowhere is unaware of

natural inequalities among men' however he would not like to

pursue and stretch the argument to the extent which often

results in the negligence of social inequalities and

justifies them also. He seems least worried about 'so called

natural inequalities' because to him, they in no way

59. Ibid, pp.326-30. The subject occupies a central place

V. I. Lenin, The state and Revolution (progress Pub.,
Moscow, 1977)~On--decclvingthe-p-eople with slogans
about liberty and equality' collected works (vol.
XXIV) , pp. 293-94 (vol.XXV) p. 472.------------

35
explains the existence of social inequali ties. Social

inequality is not to be primarily explained in terms of the

respective capacities of endowments of individuals or groups

but by their position in the over all socio-economic system

which determine the patterns of inequality. 60 Marx

identifies a 'universal domain of necessity' to illustrate

the insignificance of two fold classification of

inequalities into social and natural in the following words.

He argues:

. .. that the difference of brain and of

intellectual capacity do not imply any
difference, whatsoever, in the ngture
of stomach and of physi,cal needs ....

Thus, social inequalities, from Marxian standpoint, are

not the outcome of natural distinctions but it is not

difficult, on the other hand, to specify as Marx does a

'fundamental equality of nature' by viewing human society in

its totality.

The originating points of social inequality are family,

di vision of labour, private property and class-antagonism

according to the Marxian theory. The extent of the actual

conditions of equality and the existing patterns of

60. n.38, p.273.

61. K. Marx & F. Engels, !~~Ge~~Ideo1og1 (London,

1965), p.593.

36
inequality is related to a particular stage of social

develOpment. 62 Therefore , equality is not and cannot be a

concept of absolute nature and Marx in no uncertain way, at

various junctures, emphasized this point. Marx does not

consider social equality as something good for its own

sake. 63 Ile maintained that every ideal like equality should

be viewed in the context of historical specificities and any

attempt to universalize the idea of equality cannot provide

a substantial basis for a socialist society and hence, his

attack on the redistributive orientation of vulgar

socialists like Lassale in 'Critique of Goatha programme. 64

1.2(1) CLASSES AS THE PRIME-MANIFESTATION OF SOCIAL

INEQUALITY

The division of society into classes always involves

striking social inequnli ties of wealth and opportunity of

power and prestige, of freedom and self-actualization of

fulfillment and happiness. 65 Inequality is a characteristic

of all class-societies and only with the abolition of

62. n.38, p.273. See also Marx: Grundrisse, (Londo~pelican

1973), p.265.

63. Allenwood, "Marx and Equality in John Mepham and D. H.

If

Ruben (ed.), Issues in M~xist Philosop~ (vol. IV),

(Sussex, Harvesterl?ress,~981), p.2ll.

64. Ibid. p.203.

65. Ibid. p.195.

37
I"

classes can there be greater possibilities of fuller

realization of equality and freedom. Classes are not found

in every form of society but originated with the first

historical expansion of productive forces beyond the level

needed for mere subsistence involving the extension of

di vision of 1 u bour ou·taide the fam! ly, the accumulation of

surplus wealth and the emergence of private ownership of

economic resources. 66

For Marx, class is neither a descriptive nor a purely

economic category.67 Marx was not the only person to

discover the existence of social classes 68 but his merit

lies in Lhe analysis of cap! talist society in which ideal

slogans of liberty, equality, democracy cannot be realized.

Marx and Engels do not consider the idea of equality as

'eternal truth' because it is a historical product of

definite social conditions. On the contrary~ they would like

to view tho idea of equality in the context of 'claes-
relationships' which serves as an exemplary case of

66. T. B. Bottomore, Classes in Modern Society, (London,

Allen and Unwin, 1969), p.l~-

67. See E. O. Right, liThe status of Political in the

concept of Class StructurQ", Politics and Society, (II,
No.3, 1982) p.341. and also A. G. Frank: On capitalist
under Development, (OUp, 1979), p.88.

68. For d detailed discussion refer to Peter calvert~ The

concept of class : An Historical Introduction, (London,
Hutchison, 1982).

38
fundamental inequality. While criticizing Lassale, Marx in

no uncertain terms, emphasizes that the establishment of

social equality in essence would mean the abolition of

classes. The a.bstract and absolute notion of equality with

widell ulupinllo litH] uucn GOIlL'CI.1I0a diu not llttroct Marx. 69

Criticising the indefinite and vague phrase used by Lassale

namely, the 'elimination of all social and political

inequality' t-1arx conunents that it ought to have been said

that with the abolition of class distinctions all social

and poli tica I inequality arising from them would di sappear

of i tsel f. 70

The schematic treatment of the idea of equal! ty from

the Marxian view-point can be found in ANTI-DUHRING.

Engels, in this work deals with the evolution of the concept

in a detailed manner by relating it to the changing

historical circumstances. 71 He asserted:

The idea that all men ... are equal, is of

course primeval but the modern demand
for equality is entirely different ... men
should have equal rights in the state
nnd society before that .... ThOU8Qn~~ of
years had to pass and did pass. ~

69. The cla.ssless society of Marx is not without social

differentiation and unequal rewards but i t will be
free from the tendency for one inter-generational
perpetration of social ~ositions, see n.26, p.32.

70. n.52, p.24.

71. F. Engls, Anti-Duhring (Moscow, 1954), pp.134-49.

72. Ibid., p.144.

39
 Wlw n the Bou r ge 0 i;o (' demand f or the
<.lllol.ition of class privileges was put
forward along side appeared the"
proletarian demand for the abolition of
c[ asses themse I ves .... The pr 0 Ie tar ians
Luok the bourqeoise at its word;equality
rnu~)t not be merely apparent ... (but) also
b(~ pxtended to soc ial and economic
sphere ....

The (proletarian) demand for equality

11,1:1 a doublemcan I n<J. . . . (as) an
ex~ression of the revolutionary instinct
... or as a reaction against bourgeoise
.... equality .... stands and falls with
bourqeoise equality itself. In both
cases the (proletar ian) equal i ty
is the demand for the abolition of
classes. Any demand which goes
beyond th~S of necessi ty passes into
.lluurdity.

Thus, Il)i t'l,lr;': & Engels "the clirnlnutlon of all polltlcal

and soej,l"1 inequality" is a very questionable phrase in

place of the abolition of all class-distinction because

there will always exist a certain inequality 1n the

conditions of life and further more the idea itself is

justified as a stage of development 1n its own time and

74
place. From the above, it is obvious that Marx exmines the

idea of c<Judlity through historical specificities however,

75
he does nut finish with the ldea itself.

Finally, so far the question of Marxian approach for

the elimination of inequality is concerned, Marx ident1flAs

73. lb.lJl., pp .148-49.

74. n.52, p.35.

75. n.71, p.143.

~o
two different stages: the first stage emerges from

capitalist society in which equality consists in the

abolition of private property and class-antagonism but this

is not an end in itself as i t merely represents an

advanceQent in comparison to the capitalistic society. 1/ In

a higher phase after the enslaving subordination of the

individual to the division of labour and therewith also

antithesis between mental and physical labour has vanished,

after labour has become not only a means of life but life's

prime wunt; after the productive forces have also increased

with the all round development of the individual and all the

springs of cooperatives wealth flow more abundantly - only

thel'lt call the narrow horizon of Bourgeoise-right be crossed

in its entirety I and society inscribe on its banners: from

each according to his ability, to each according to his

needs. 76

The division of labour according to Marx represents a

highly concretized form of social inequality in the

capitalist society;. It forces men to do those works which

are very much against their natural choices. It is an

imposition from the above in which men are gradually

dehumanized and alienated. ltIarx wanted to overcome or

76. n.52, p.19.

41
abolish such type of division of labour which prevails in

the capitalist society.

It is important to note that some scholars are trying

to read too much from the views of Marx regarding division

of labour. For them 'the abolition of the division of labour

is nothing more than a utopian idea. In their opinion, it is

quite impossible to abolish division of labour simply due to

the fact that all men cannot do all types of work and the

division of labour is necessary for operating social system.

Marx should not be taken too literally in this regard.

By abolition of the division of labour he did not advocate

the total abolition or obliteration of any division of

labour. He simply said that the division of labour in a

,
capitalist society was a coercive system which not only

played a central part in dehumanization but also generated

and maintained various forms of socio-economic

inequali ties. Thus, the abolition of thi s coercive system

was considered a primary requirement for the establishment

of socia-economic equali ty. It can be argued that the

division of labour in a communist society will be totally

different from the cDpitalist society.77 The obvious

77. See for details the views of E. K. Hunt in a reply to

Rat tansi, Science and Society (spring, 1986, vol. L,
No.1 (New York), pp. 102-3. Tom Bot tomore : Soci<?},?S.X
and socialism (Bu8sexJwheat8he~f books 1984 p.168.

42
contrast imrlies that the new system will be based upon

men's interests and choices and coercive nature will

altogether disappear. It should be clearly noted that Marx

and Engels did not mean by equality a crude levelling. They

opposed the widespread interpretation of equality in terms

of crude levelling and on the contrary, emphasized "The

real content of equality lies in the demand for the

abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes

beyond that, of necessity or which did not contain, passes

into stupidity and absurdity. The primitive utopian

socialism was severely critized by them because it preached

'social levelling.! in its crudest form without considering

the class-manifestation of social inequality.78 Equality

viewed in terms of 'sheer levelling' and equalization, for

Marx and Engels, had a reactionary bias and advocated a

kind of radical socialism, as put forward by Duhring in

opposition to Marxian socialism. Therefore, it was not

without a reason that a whole chapter was devoted by Engels

in his Anti-Duhring to the detailed criticism of so called

radical socialism propounded by Lassale and Duhring.

Lenin's stand on this particular issue was not

different. He said "Engels wa. a thousand times right when

78. Marx & Engels ~ Manifesto of the cOlTullunmi st

p. 71 .

43
he wrote that to conceive equality as meaning anything

beyond the abolition of classes is very stupid and absurd

prejudice. Bourgeoise professors have tried to make use of

the concept of equality to accuse us of wanting to make all

men equal to one another. They have tried to accuse the

socialists of this absurdity which they themselves

invented. Stalin and successive political leadership of

Soviet Union including Brezhnev also accepted the above

ideological frame in the coming years. They never understood

social equality in terms of a levelling but what was aimed

related to the over all restructuring of socio-economic

structures in order to abolish classes and their various

manifeslulions.

Thus for Marx, the fundamental form of inequality is

embodied in the institution of social class 79 stemming from

the relations to the means of production and expressed in

the structural form of economic dominance accompanied by

its own specific ideological and political functions. 80 The

inequitable sharing of social desirable goods by various

socictJ. l1ygn.'CJlltee, which results from the prevalent mode of

79. T.B. Bottomore, Elites and Societx (penguin, 1982),

p.133.

80. R. R. S11arma (ed.), The USSR in transition: Issues &

Themes, 1922-82 (Delhi Atlantic Publishers, 1985)-;-
p:-fIT.--

44
production at that point of time, leads to differentials in

income, consumption patterns, p~estige, life chances and so

on. Highlighting the above forms of inequality Marx was also

aware of various other dimensions of inequality which can be

observed in the division of labour in society concretized in

the form of contradictions between manual and intellectual

work, between town and country and so on.

Marx, after identifying the fundamental form of

inequality, asserted that the class differences will

gradually disappear in socialist society but this, according

to him was not the final resolution as the social

stratification based on division of labour persists even in

a socialist society. The division of labour "which is forced

upon man and form which he cannot escape" is to be

abolished in the communist society "making it possible to

hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in

the evening t cr i ticize after dinner ... wi thout ever becoming

hunter, fisherman, shephard or critic." 81

Now, towards the end of this discussion, it is

necessary to briefly mention the distinct points offered by

Marxism in relation to the notion of equality. Marxism holds

81. K. Marx & F. Engels, ~~~German_'!Q~_ology (Moscow,

progress 1976), R. 53, see also Ali Rattansi, Marx &
the Division of Labour (London, Macmillan, 1982).

45
that tIle ldea of equality is a product of historical

development and that in each epoch this idea was filled with

a definite content. It further clarifies that the concept of

equality has a class-nature i.e. it means different things

to different classes. The Bourgeoise concept of equality is

directed at preserving the bases of private property and

exploi La Li ve relations. The proletarian equality according

to Marx can mean nothing else than the abolition of classes.

Severely criticizing the conservatives, liberals and

neoliberal~Marx was of the view that social equality cannot

be achieved within the framework of capitalistic relations.

'rhus the issue of social euqali ty is intimately linked with

the establishment of socialism. The founders of Marxism

clearly emphasised the point by saying that social-equality

can be possible only under conditions of socialist

organisution of production and of the transformation of

capitalistic relations into socialist relations. 82

Marxism offers an indepth analysis of the causes of

social indequality namely family ... private property and

division of labour. It also specifies two successive stages

through which the entire problem is supposed to be resolved.

The final stage of communism is to represent the ultimate

82. N. Yermolayev, Genuine Social Equality and Justice for

all (Kiev, Politvidav Ukrainin Pub. House, 1983), p.ll.

46
resolution but we are in no way concerned with this aspect.

In the following pages it is proposed to discuss the actual

impiementation of Marxian strategy directed towards

eliminating social inequality. The marxian formulations

regarding the first stage of socialism in relation to

equali ty can only be analysed wi thin the framework of the

present study.

47